assignment 610
Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-
sor in the School of Public, Nonprofi t and
Health Administration at Grand Valley State
University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His
research examines the interplay between
bureaucracy and democracy, with particular
interest in the impacts of administra-
tive decision processes on the perceived
legitimacy of governance structures. His
work focuses mainly on state and local
governments.
E-mail: buckwaln@gvsu.edu
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, 573 the use is non-commercial and no modifi cations or adaptations are made.
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 74, Iss. 5, pp. 573–584. © 2014
The Authors. Public Administration Review
published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on
behalf of The American Society for Public
Administration. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12217.
Neal D. Buckwalter Grand Valley State University
Th is article develops a better theoretical understanding of the linkage between the processes and outcomes associ- ated with government-organized public participation, including its potential to empower citizens in guiding administrative decisions. Special focus is given to those factors that shape the development and maintenance of the citizen– administrator relationship. To this end, the research examines the work of federally mandated citizen review panels and their interac- tions with state child protection agency administrators. Based on 52 in-depth interviews conducted with citizens and administrators in three U.S. states, a grounded theory approach is employed to derive a series of test- able theoretical propositions. Th e insights gained are of importance not only to public administration scholars but also to citizens and administrators who engage one another through formally organized channels of participation.
Public administration scholars and practitioners have long grappled with the prospects of bal-ancing democracy’s aims at openness and public inclusion with bureaucracy’s focus on effi ciency and expertise. A better understanding of these tensions has become increasingly important as a wide range of citizen participation opportunities have emerged dur- ing the past half century, many of which have sought to bring citizens to a more infl uential position relative to administration (Arnstein 1969; Kweit and Kweit 1981; Roberts 2004; Th omas 1995). Broadly speak- ing, citizen participation mechanisms are categorized as either citizen driven or government organized (Simonsen and Robbins 2000; Wandersman 1984). Th e latter is the focus of this article, and it is most often the result of legislative mandate; thus, it is at times referred to as mandated participation.
Under the auspices of a vast regime of intergov- ernmental grants, the U.S. federal government has over the past 50 years increasingly linked funding
eligibility, at least in part, to the recipient jurisdiction’s willingness and ability to facilitate public involve- ment. Even with such provisions for participation, the recipient subnational government (i.e., state or locality) often retains signifi cant discretion to interpret
and implement the provisions for increased public inclusion. In other words, once public par- ticipation has been mandated, the choice for administrators is not necessarily whether to include the public but rather how inclusive to be in terms of quality of interaction and potential for impact.
Government-Mandated Citizen Participation Th e modern origins of mandated participation in the United States reach back to the mid-twentieth century, a pivotal time in the development of direct citizen inclusion in policy making and implementa- tion (Roberts 2004). Two concurrent trends made this possible. Not only was the scope of government responsibility growing, but also a notable decline in public trust in traditional governing institutions was beginning. Th ese conditions fueled the rising interest in more direct citizen involvement, including diff er- ent varieties of government-sponsored participation (Simonsen and Robbins 2000).
In the 1960s, the Community Action Programs of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty emphasized “maximum feasible participation.” Mandated public involvement was further institutionalized during the 1970s with the expansion of federal grant-in-aid programs to states and localities. By 1978, public participation requirements were featured prominently in 155 separate grant programs, which accounted for more than four out of every fi ve dollars of federal grant funds (ACIR 1979). Despite recognition of the challenges to measuring its eff ectiveness (Rosener 1978), the number of policy areas with direct citizen involvement has ballooned far beyond community
Th e Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-Organized Participation
Th e choice for administrators is not necessarily whether to include the public but rather how inclusive to be in terms of quality of interaction and
potential for impact.
574 Public Administration Review • September | October 2014
as their level of responsiveness to citizen input (Bryer 2007, 2009; Yang and Callahan 2007).
A number of conceptual and empirical studies have examined fac- tors that purportedly impact administrative responsiveness to direct public participation. Robert and Mary Kweit (1980) hypothesized that the closer citizen involvement aligns with bureaucratic forms and goals, the more facilitative and responsive administrators will be to citizen input. Further, they suggested that administrative toler- ance for public involvement is a by-product of the resources that citizens are perceived to bring to the table, so to speak, as well as the environmental contexts, pressures, and constraints under which the participation processes emerge. Empirical evidence lends support. For example, stakeholder pressure, such as that from elected offi cials (Yang and Callahan 2007) or, more broadly, from media-driven public opinion (Yang and Pandey 2007), has shown positive associa- tion with bureaucratic openness to public involvement.
Effi ciency and expertise are important administrative values to consider for their eff ects on bureaucratic responsiveness (Kaufman 1956). Not only does the engagement of citizens lengthen decision processes, but also citizen-participants are often perceived by admin- istrators as lacking the technical expertise required to address major public concerns (Hadden 1981; Stewart 2007). Th is may cause administrators to grapple with how to balance their own expertise with the input provided by the public, ultimately weighing citizen interactions in terms of the costs and benefi ts involved. Irvin and Stansbury (2004) found that administrators were more likely to per- ceive lower costs of information sharing when the information was less technical in nature or when the capacity of citizen-participants was suffi ciently high that they required less help in understanding it. On the side of benefi t, administrators may consider meaningful public inclusion a means to strengthen perceptions of the legitimacy for governance mechanisms (Moynihan 2003). Even so, positive disposition of administrators toward participation has been found to be strongly tempered by time and resource constraints (Yang and Callahan 2007).
In his examination of citizen–administrator interactions in Los Angeles neighborhood councils, Th omas Bryer (2009) highlighted an increase in responsiveness when there was a relationship of trust, when there was a sense of goal alignment between citizens and administrators, and when there was a willingness on the part of administrators to learn from the citizens. Th is raises the question of how to identify and pursue more unifying eff orts that would facilitate these conditions, especially when the mandate for citizen
involvement so often emerges in an environ- ment of low trust in government and when participation is seen as an additional check against administrative misbehavior. Such an environment may foster and perpetuate an adversarial relationship, which would work against trust-building eff orts.
Th e existing literature has focused much more on administrator willingness to structure participation processes (i.e., formal empower- ment), with much less theory development as to how those processes move toward
planning to include state energy policy (Timney 1998), public health and AIDS prevention (Foley 1998), transportation planning (Kathlene and Martin 1991), environmental protection (Rich et al. 1995), and watershed management (Irvin and Stansbury 2004), to name just a few.
Research suggests that some forms of participation are more con- ducive to public empowerment (i.e., public impact) than others, although widespread agreement on these outcomes has been elusive. For example, one of the most common participation mechanisms— the public hearing—is frequently denigrated for its ineff ectiveness and the ease with which it is so often subverted by administrators (Innes and Booher 2004; King, Feltey, and Susel 1998). However, variations of the public hearing format have been hailed as highly successful in certain contexts (Moynihan 2003), such as when steps are taken by managers to meaningfully invite public attendance (Hock, Anderson, and Potoski 2013), and especially when such processes approximate true deliberation rather than being treated as formality (Lukensmeyer and Brigham 2005). Similar counterbalanc- ing arguments have been made about the use of citizen boards or community panels (Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer 1986; Houghton 1988; Kathlene and Martin 1991).
Seeking a Link between Citizens and Administrators In what is still one of the most-cited typologies of citizen par- ticipation, Sherry Arnstein (1969) described a range of citi- zen–administrator interactions as representing various rungs on a ladder. As one progresses up the ladder, the public becomes increasingly involved, fi rst in manipulated or “token” ways but with greater citizen control manifest at the highest rungs. Subsequent treatments of participation models have adapted similar characterizations. For example, Mary Timney (2011) recently developed a 10-point scorecard of participation methods ranging from unitary, passive models in which agencies control the participation process to more inclusive, active models of increased citizen consideration. Such models provide a useful framework for understanding the potential for public empowerment through participation.
Administrators play a dual role in public empowerment, infl uenc- ing both its processes and its outcomes. First, they help create the conditions for empowerment by shaping the venues in which the public participates and by providing information and other critical resources to build participant effi cacy. Th is is what the commu- nity psychology literature describes as formal and instrumental empowerment, the former referring to citizen access to participation processes and the latter being the “individual’s actual capacity for participating in and infl u- encing a decision-making process” (Rich et al. 1995, 667). Second, administrators infl uence the outcomes of participation, or “substantive empowerment” (Rich et al. 1995, 668), by working together with the public to make and then carry out eff ective decisions. Th erefore, the processes and outcomes of empowerment are directly impacted by the administrator’s willingness to blend more democratic means with dominant administrative values and goals (King, Feltey, and Susel 1998), as well
Th ere is a need for under- standing how processes link
with outcomes, how par- ticipation mechanisms shape
citizen capacity, and how these phenomena interact with
administrator responsiveness to move toward substantive
empowerment.
The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-Organized Participation 575
to receive CAPTA grant funds, states would now be required to establish a minimum of three citizen review panels (CRPs) with the specifi c role of providing systemic evaluation of state child protection policy and practice. So as not to overburden states with the requirement, the legislation included provisions allowing the use of already-existing citizen boards (e.g., child fatality review teams and/or foster care review boards) to meet the CRP require- ment; states could decide to support the creation of new panels or not. Th ese CRPs were to be composed of citizen volunteers, with a membership broadly representative of the community it served but also including individuals with some level of expertise in child welfare. Importantly, the CRPs would meet regularly, and their activities and recommendations for agency improvements would be documented in an annual public report. States would be under obligation to provide adequate assistance in order for panels to perform their functions, including staff support and access to necessary information. While this more targeted approach to public inclusion moved closer toward a potentially empowered public, it lacked a crucial element, namely, the ability to gauge administrative response.
CAPTA was again reauthorized in 2003 as the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act (P.L. 108-36). One signifi cant change was that state agency administrators were now required to respond to the CRP’s annual report of recommendations within six months, acknowledging and detailing how they intended to address item-
ized concerns. Although the state is not obliged to implement the recommendations of the CRP, their written responses give the panels a chance to assess the citizen-partici- pants’ substantive empowerment. With wide variation in state responsiveness to these citizen groups, there exists a range of possible empowerment outcomes.
empowered outcomes (i.e., substantive empowerment). As visualized in fi gure 1, there exists a sort of black box between participation structures/processes and the impacts of direct citizen involvement. Th ere is a need for understanding how processes link with out- comes, how participation mechanisms shape citizen capacity, and how these phenomena interact with administrator responsiveness to move toward substantive empowerment. Th e next section describes the policy context in which the present research is framed to begin fi lling these gaps in our understanding of public empowerment through mandated participation.
Research Context and Design In recent years, state child protection as a policy area has experi- enced a number of important reforms that make it a natural context in which to study elements of public empowerment. Of particular interest are various provisions accompanying the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as shown in fi gure 2. Originally passed in 1974, CAPTA made some (albeit limited) grant funding available to encourage states to begin more systematic eff orts to examine and address child maltreatment. Th e legislation established parameters for defi ning abuse and neglect, promoted the tracking and measurement of these phenomena through a central data clearinghouse, and encouraged states to conform their manda- tory reporting requirements to a federal standard. Th ese require- ments for information gathering and dissemination represent a partial step in the direction of potential public empowerment by increasing the public’s ability to access infor- mation about child abuse.
In 1996, however, a reauthorization of CAPTA (P.L. 104-235) made signifi cant steps toward public empowerment by mandating greater citizen involvement in state child protection policy and practice. In order
Substantive Empowerment Decisions leading to desired outcomes
Formal Empowerment Mechanism for public involvement
Participant Capacity
Capacity for influencing
decisions
Administrator Responsiveness
Willingness to engage
and share power
???
Agency Openness to Participation
(e.g., tolerance for participation,
perceived benefits/costs)
Figure 1 The Black Box of Public Empowerment
With wide variation in state responsiveness to these citizen
groups, there exists a range of possible empowerment
outcomes.
576 Public Administration Review • September | October 2014
predictors of perceived eff ectiveness in impacting child welfare policy and practices have been noted, including the level of group cohesion, the level of information fl ow between the state agency and the CRP, and the degree of perceived self-governance (i.e., auton- omy) by the panels (Bryan, Jones, and Lawson 2010).
Methodology Within a grounded theory framework, the present research employs a qualitative multicase analysis of citizen–agency relationships in three U.S. states. Th e rationale for selecting this methodology was to allow the researcher to more deeply examine relationships and interactions within the contexts in which they occur. Data collection, coding, categorization, and theory development were engaged concurrently. Th e principal benefi t of such an approach is its fl exibility in allow- ing unforeseen themes and patterns to emerge from the data, thus facilitating theory development (Strauss and Corbin 1998).
Selection Strategy and Criteria Th ree states were selected for in-depth analysis and case develop- ment: Kentucky, Utah, and Pennsylvania. A purposeful selection strategy was used to ensure diversity among the cases in the study and to increase the richness of within- and across-case comparisons. Th e logic behind this nonrandom approach to case selection is a hallmark of many qualitative studies, in which the aim is less about generalization but rather “to select information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study” (Patton 1990, 169). Th e richness of information was amplifi ed by the selection of cases with characteristics that were intrinsically interesting and informative because of their uniqueness within the study’s context (Creswell 1998; Patton 1990; Stake 1995).
In the majority of states, administration of child protective services resides in a central child protection agency, with regional or county
Today, all 50 states have some form of CRP process in place. Almost all were compliant by the 1999 deadline, although at least two states—Indiana (in 2005) and Pennsylvania (in 2006)—lagged in meeting the CRP requirement. Th ere is wide variation in how the states have implemented the rather vague citizen participation description in the CAPTA legislation, indicating that some states may take the work of the CRPs more seriously than others.
Only recently has the work of CRPs in child welfare been the focus of empirical examination, almost exclusively in the social work literature. Despite its limited scope, the existing research has shed light on the characteristics and perceptions of eff ectiveness of the CRP process. Demographic surveys of participants indicate that the groups are skewed toward participation by highly educated, middle- age females (Jones and Royse 2008a). Additionally, a very high proportion of CRP members come directly from social service pro- fessions, although generally outside the state child protection agency (Bryan, Jones, and Lawson 2010). Even though these participants come with advanced degrees, often including relevant experience in professions related to child welfare, customized training is needed for them to be eff ective in carrying out the functions of the CRP. Th is training becomes particularly important for individuals with no experience working within a large bureaucracy such as a state child welfare system (Collins-Camargo, Jones, and Krusich 2009).
Aside from training needs, other challenges to the eff ective work of CRPs include a lack of funding, a perception of defensive posturing by the state agency (Jones and Royse 2008b), a perception of dis- trust that characterizes many relationships between the agency and the citizen-participants (Collins-Camargo, Jones, and Krusich 2009; Jones 2004), and a pessimistic view by agency personnel regarding the ability of the citizen panels to make informed recommenda- tions (Jones, Litzelfelner, and Ford (2003). Several strong, positive
Information Gathering and Dissemination
Targeting Knowledge and Inclusiveness
Toward Empowerment (gauging impact)
National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect
Clearinghouse to collect
and disseminate
information on child
abuse and neglect
Minimum of three
CRPs per state
Office of Child
Abuse and Neglect
Examine state child
protection policy and
procedure
Annual report of panel
recommendations
States to provide
information and
support to panels
Mandatory state response
to recommendations
within six months
and
Additional public
outreach and comment
1974 1996 2003
Figure 2 The Evolution of Empowerment in CAPTA
The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-Organized Participation 577
(Kentucky = 15, Pennsylvania = 16, Utah = 21). On average, the interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and followed a guided discussion format, focusing broadly on perceptions and experiences with the panels’ eff orts to shape agency decisions and outcomes. Th e data collection process also entailed multiple site visits in each case state as well as opportunities for direct observation of panel training and activities. Th e interview process continued until no new data, or data that were only marginally constructive to new theory, were being revealed—a point described as reaching saturation (Creswell 1998; Strauss and Corbin 1998).
In Kentucky and Utah, one-third of the interviewees were adminis- trative representatives of the state child protection agency, including regional agencies. In Pennsylvania, fewer state agency administrators were interviewed because of the unique child protection structure, in which the state Offi ce of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) plays more of a support and monitoring role, while the individual counties administer child protective services. To bolster the limited administrator perspective, a number of interviews were conducted with members of the CRP Subcommittee, a stakeholder group established and assisted by the OCYF to organize and support the citizen review process throughout the state. By including members of this group in the interviews, again, one-third of the interviewees represented the state agency perspective.
Interviewing and subsequent note transcription was conducted solely by the researcher. Each set of interview notes was carefully transcribed from handwritten to digital format, and open coding of the responses resulted in the categorization of similar con- cepts. Conceptual categories were spatially paired on a matrix and reordered to see the predominance of themes emerging from the interviews (Miles and Huberman 1994). Within-case analyses high- lighted similarities and distinctions in the structure and processes of government-organized citizen participation. Th rough constant comparison of data across the cases, the analysis extended to the emergence of broader themes from the guided discussions.
In addition to the primary interview data, the research also made use of extensive document analysis of publicly available secondary resources, including federal and state legislative proceedings, judicial rulings, and annual reports of panel activities and state responses. Th ese data sources enhanced understanding of the context, tone of citizen–administrator interaction, and level of substantive public empowerment manifest through formal participation processes. Furthermore, secondary data allowed confi rmation of insights revealed through the primary data—an important source of triangulation in the analysis (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Miles and Huberman 1994).
Emergent Themes and Testable Propositions Within- and across-case analyses revealed several important themes in regard to the process of moving toward a stronger citizen voice in shaping agency decisions. Th ree broad theoretical propositions about the potential for government-organized citizen participation to empower the public emerged.
1. Th e gap between bureaucratic reality and participant expec- tations can become a major source of disappointment and frustration for both citizens and administrators involved.
offi ces acting as extensions (i.e., state administered). In a smaller number of states, counties retain signifi cantly greater discretion in administering child protection, while the state plays a supervisory role (i.e., state supervised, county administered). As a fi rst criterion, then, cases were selected to refl ect this variation in local discretion, which is believed to impact the ways in which citizen participation evolves, based on classifi cation at the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2012).
Second, variation was sought in terms of the level of citizen panel autonomy, or the ability to self-direct as a group. In theory, less autonomous citizen groups may fi nd their eff orts being shaped according to the state agency’s goals rather than directed toward their own (Houghton 1988). One indicator of CRP autonomy is the locus of coordination of panel eff orts. Two broad patterns have emerged in this regard. Internal coordination, in which a child protection agency employee oversees the work of the CRPs, has the potential to reduce panel autonomy, with greater control of the citizen groups being left to the agency. On the other hand, external coordination by a party separate from the state agency may increase panel autonomy, with less control over the process being in the hands of agency administrators. Cases were selected to refl ect both internal and external coordination.
A number of other factors were also considered in selecting the cases for this study, providing additional opportunities for variation and comparison, as shown in table 1 (ordered by sequence of site visits and interviews). Because agency openness to participation is another key variable relevant to empowerment, cases were chosen that had the potential for a range in state response to the political mandate to create CRPs. Indicators of state responsiveness in case selection include the timing of compliance to the CAPTA mandate (immediate or delayed), the number and geographic coverage of the panels across the states (limited or comprehensive), whether states created new panels or simply used existing citizen groups to meet the requirement, whether the state had assigned an agency liaison to provide support for the panels, and whether the state had facilitated the creation of at least one panel devoted specifi cally to state-level policy.
Primary and Secondary Data Primary original data for the research come from 52 in-depth personal interviews conducted with state and regional-level agency administrators and employees, as well as CRP participants
Table 1 Case Variation on Selection Criteria
Kentucky Utah Pennsylvania
State/county role in child protective services
State administered
State administered
State supervised, county administered
Locus of panel coordination
External Internal External
Timing of compliance Immediate (1999)
Immediate (1999)
Delayed (2010)
Number of current CRPs (as of 2012)
3 8 3
Regional panel coverage Limited Comprehensive Limited New or existing groups to
meet mandate New Existing New
Assigned agency liaison Yes Yes Yes State-level CRP Yes Yes No
578 Public Administration Review • September | October 2014
a personal “axe to grind” with the agency, this was viewed widely across all cases as damaging both the citizen–agency relationship and the cohesion between the citizen-participants. Individuals with exceptionally strong personal agendas were much more likely to become frustrated and exit the participation process.
Th e cogent reality of administrative constraints was described by an administrator, who said, “Th ere is not generally a lot of wiggle room for the [agency]. So many of our guidelines and operating proce- dures are dictated by federal and state mandates.” Perhaps the most formidable constraint was the ever-present budgetary concern—the lack of money to implement new programs or initiate new tech- nologies. As one panel member acknowledged, recommendations that appeared to be “pie in the sky” were most often neglected, not
because they were undesirable but rather because they were unfeasible. By tacitly acknowledging agency constraints, panels can realistically adjust in advance their expecta- tions and recommendations in ways that will maintain a positive tone in the relationship.
One common adjustment in expectations had to do with the speed of change. As one inter- viewee noted, “Th e wheels of state govern- ment turn very slowly.” Because of this, some panel members observed the panels shifting from short-term thinking to longer-term
goals, seeing the groups’ eff orts as part of a big-picture process or “part of a bigger conversation.” However, for those participants who were not content to simply be part of the conversation, remaining with the panels was much less likely. Th e more citizens are able to bal- ance their pursuit of preferred outcomes with patience for the process, the more likely they will continue their involvement. Participant retention suff ers as a result of unmet and/or unadjusted expectations.
The mystique (and power) of complexity. In the formal relationship between the agency and the CRPs, there are two key sources of power that the former maintains over the latter. First, the agency has statutory and legal authority from the state, which includes not only the mandate to provide child protective services but also the allocation of public resources to do so. Second, and perhaps less obvious, is the power that comes from being cloaked in organizational complexity. In Kentucky, I witnessed one CRP member concede to the panel coordinator that she could no longer participate, in large measure because she found the review process to be overly complex and demanding. The initially steep learning curve, particularly for those with less direct ties to the system, creates a challenge for the recruitment and retention of panel members.
While a working knowledge of child welfare was important to successful panel participation, equally or more important was the participants’ willingness to apply themselves in learning about the complexities of the child protection system. Th is is no small task, as learning ranges from the agency-specifi c dialect and “alphabet soup” of government acronyms, to the intricacies of demands fl owing up and down through the intergovernmental system, and horizontally between intersectoral partners. To achieve this sort of systemic understanding requires prolonged experience with and exposure to
2. Th e degree of citizen–administrator interconnectedness impacts citizens’ feelings of infl uence and empowerment in the participation process.
3. With legitimate processes in place, the path to empow- ered outcomes runs through strong citizen–administrator relationships.
In the discussion that follows, each of these propositions is explored in more detail, including a series of testable subpropositions that appear in italicized font within the text.
Bureaucratic Realities and Participant Expectations According to agency administrators, a signifi cant factor shap- ing the tone of the citizen–administrator relationship is whether the participating public maintains realistic expectations for the review process and its potential outcomes. Fundamentally, this requires understanding the constraints under which agency administrators operate and, in light of these, providing realistic recommen- dations for agency improvement. Certainly, this is not to suggest that bureaucratic realities should not be scrutinized and challenged by the panels. Th at is, in fact, a key benefi t of the review process, as noted by interviewees—that citizens provide an outside perspective and challenge convention by asking not only how things are done but also why. Nevertheless, voices from both sides underscored the need to be cognizant of constraints.
The balance between passion and patience. Although many citizen-participants had acquired expertise in fi elds related to child welfare, this certainly did not mean that they had a concomitant understanding of bureaucratic and political structures. While the source of personal interest in participation varied, one underlying characteristic was identifi able across the wide range of participants, namely, an expressed, impassioned desire to improve the lives of children and families in their state. However, working with a large public bureaucracy, infused as it is with the politics of child welfare, is often markedly slower and much less fl exible than what many citizen-participants initially expect. The resulting gap between bureaucratic reality and participant expectations can become a major source disappointment for both the citizens and administrators involved. Such disappointment can lead, in turn, to frustration when participants possess especially strong feelings or personal clarity about what they think should be done by an agency but do not see as clearly the nuanced reality of what is actually feasible. This is in line with what the literature has suggested regarding citizens’ normative expectations (e.g., see James 2011).
At times, preconceived notions caused citizen-participants to become unbendingly focused on particular issues that they found most disconcerting about the agency. Having a “pet issue,” though, does not necessarily create a negative tone in the relationship between the parties involved. However, if an individual brings a retaliatory mentality based on perceived negative experiences with the state (e.g., having one’s own child removed from the home or having received poor foster care reviews), the result can be dramatic. When the rhetoric takes on a tone of having a “bone to pick” or
According to agency admin- istrators, a signifi cant factor
shaping the tone of the citizen– administrator relationship is
whether the participating public maintains realistic expectations for the review process and its
potential outcomes.
The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-Organized Participation 579
to secure administrator support for and buy-in to the process. Th e panels reported struggling to know where to target their eff orts and with whom to start the intended dialogue regarding systemic improvements—hard enough to do with one administrator, let alone a dozen.
Eff ective government-organized citizen participation is facilitated by the ability of participants to clearly identify relevant administrative actors. Th is means that it is useful to keep the number of adminis- trative decision makers in the relationship relatively small. Th e more diff use the administrative audience—that is, the greater the number of
decision makers to consider—the less infl uence citizen-participants will have on agency direc- tion and decisions.
Moving from apathy to empathy. The next vital step in moving toward the establishment of an effective relationship between citizens and administrators, particularly those at
higher levels of agency infl uence, is to reduce the proximal and qualitative distance between the parties. The more meaningful, direct, and sustained the interactions, the greater the chance of administrators supporting the panels’ efforts to shape agency direction. A comparison of the three case states is instructive in this regard, as the cases represent varying degrees of separation between the citizen panels and the administrative decision makers.
In Pennsylvania, there was a sense of deep separation between the state agency and the CRPs, although this distance should not be confused with a lack of interest. Two factors contributed to the apparent divide. First, interpreting the spirit of the CAPTA legislation as aiming for truly citizen-led panels, the state struc- tured citizen–agency relationships with a strong tilt toward panel autonomy. Explicit eff orts were taken to reduce agency contact with the panels lest the contact be interpreted as meddling in the groups’ work. Second, the unique county-administered structure for child protective services made the state’s role in engaging the panels less direct by its very nature, as the mandated recommendation and response dialogue was intended ultimately to be between the panels and the county agency administrators. While the state did assign a liaison initially, this individual’s presence at the panel meetings was essentially kept to an invitation-only basis. Indeed, the liaison attended just a couple of meetings, in an eff ort to help orient the panels. Following that, the only sustained support personnel to attend regularly was the contracted external coordinator. As vital as the coordinator’s role was to the panels’ eff orts, this arrangement meant that there was very little direct and sustained interaction with the state administrative decision makers.
In Kentucky, the CRPs have historically had more continuous contact with representatives of the state and regional child protec- tion agencies, although this contact has tended to be less direct with top administrators. Like Pennsylvania, Kentucky’s citizen panels have an externally contracted coordinator who attends each meeting and provides important logistical support for the groups. Each panel also has a designated liaison from the state or regional agency who regularly attends meetings and provides support for the participation process. As the title suggests, the liaison is the one who links the agency with the panels. However, the liaisons are not
the agency. Importantly, it also requires that the agency be willing to facilitate this learning by sharing pertinent information and build- ing participant capacity. With experience, the citizen-participants’ capacity to engage agency administrators increases. Th e greater the capacity to understand the agency—its language, culture, and politics— the better positioned citizens will be to engage in dialogue and shape agency decisions.
Citizen–Administrator Interconnectedness Th e public’s greatest ability to shape agency administrators’ deci- sions will come in working with, not against, the agency. One very important step in this regard is securing willing support from the agency. Obtaining administrative buy-in to the citizen review process is vital in setting a positive tone in the relationship between citizens and the agency and achieving success in shaping administra- tive decisions. Th e degree of citizen–admin- istrator interconnectedness impacts citizens’ feelings of infl uence and empowerment in the participation process.
A common theme identifi ed by interviewees was the challenge of establishing a meaningful and productive relationship in light of what seems like a revolving door of agency leadership and an ever- changing set of administrative priorities. Th e dynamic nature of child welfare, with its pendulum-like swings from crisis to crisis, can cause seemingly rapid shifts in administrative focus (Gainsborough 2010). In addition, frequent changes in leaders and issues make it diffi cult for the CRPs to gain momentum in their work and build sustainable relationships with high-level agency decision makers. Th e desire for more face-to-face interactions, described later, is met with the reality of time constraints and competing agency priorities. Despite these diffi culties, some panels have been quite successful at establishing positive and productive relationships with top agency offi cials.
Structuring for success. One important consideration in helping citizen-participants identify and build relationships with administrators is to structure jurisdictional coverage in ways that allow the panels to clearly identify the appropriate administrative audience. This includes minimizing the number of administrators that panels must take into consideration when crafting their recommendations. In both Kentucky and Utah, the regional citizen panels align with the corresponding regional offi ces of the state’s child protection services, while the statewide panels are paired directly with the central state offi ce. This allows the citizen groups in these two states to more clearly identify agency leaders with whom to engage.
In Pennsylvania, however, the issue is made more diffi cult because child protection services are administered by the counties, while the state’s role is one of supervision. Each of the three CRPs in Pennsylvania covers about a dozen counties, but these groupings do not correspond to a meaningful regional administrative jurisdiction of the state child protective service. Because each county adminis- ters its own system of child protection, the CRPs have an average of 12 agency heads to consider rather than a single agency direc- tor. According to the panel participants with whom I spoke, being stretched across so many administrative boundaries made it diffi cult
Th e public’s greatest ability to shape agency administrators’
decisions will come in working with, not against, the agency.
580 Public Administration Review • September | October 2014
with the enabling federal legislation that mandated the creation of the panels. However, the interviews also revealed two related themes explaining the challenge of complete panel autonomy in agenda setting. First, it is diffi cult to prioritize and reduce the number of topic choices, with child protection being such a broad and encompassing fi eld. Second, panels inevitably realize that they do not work in a vacuum and must actively consider their interrelatedness with the agency when selecting areas of focus.
Ultimately, these two realities lead panels to sense a need (and even desire) for some guidance and direction from the state agency in agenda setting. Interviewees in Pennsylvania, for example, suggested that more state direction toward topic selection would be help- ful because “it is just too big of a system to turn the CRPs loose.” Others wanted more guidance because of the newness of the process in Pennsylvania, frequently describing their ignorance of the system by asserting, “We don’t know what we don’t know.” Similar senti- ments were expressed in Kentucky and Utah as well, although the connections with the child protection agencies in those states were somewhat more developed. Without some agency guidance, panels start to wonder about the value of their eff orts and whether they are “meeting just to meet.”
Varying degrees of agency infl uence on the agenda of the citizen groups were manifest across the three case states. In Pennsylvania, interviewees noted practically no infl uence by the state child protec- tion agency in setting the panels’ agenda. Th is was attributable in large part to the hands-off approach that the state has taken with
the panels since their inception. In Kentucky, recent eff orts, such as the annual all-panel retreat, have increasingly sought to bring panel members and agency administrators in closer contact during the agenda-setting process. While the state agency has no formal say in which systemic issues will be the focus of the panels’ yearly review activities, some panels have started to inquire about agency priorities, so as to avoid what one adminis- trator described as the panels simply going through “an academic exercise.”
In Utah, with administrators participating on the citizen commit- tees, agenda items were much more directly prone to being infl u- enced by the agency. Surprisingly, only one interviewee felt that this arrangement compromised the integrity of the review process, evoking the image of a fox guarding the henhouse. Participants were overwhelmingly satisfi ed with the agency presence and guid- ance. For example, one interviewee noted that even when the agency expressed some needs to the QIC, “the relationship, as it has evolved, allows such a partnership, so it does not feel like [the agency] is overstepping.” Concerns over ceding independence were counterbalanced by an increase in group infl uence on agency decisions.
Th ere is a precarious balance to be sought between the level of panel autonomy and the degree of agency control over panel activities. With too much agency control, citizen groups can be manipu- lated in order to weaken their impact or co-opted by the govern- ment body in order to direct eff orts to the ends that the state most
high-level agency administrators, and they do not have agency-wide decision-making power. Regional and state administrators have attended panel meetings, but this has been infrequent and inconsist- ent. Recent developments, such as a quarterly meeting between the panel chairs and higher-level agency administrators, have put panels in more direct contact with top agency offi cials, and the impacts on panel–agency relationships have been positive. Even so, the bulk of sustained interaction between the agency and the panels is mediated through the liaison and the externally contracted coordinator.
Finally, in Utah, the quality improvement committees (QICs, the term for citizen review panels in that state) and the state and regional child protection agencies are highly interconnected. Agency involvement in the review process is direct and ongoing. From their inception, the QICs have had agency representatives as sitting mem- bers, in addition to the support personnel who attend. Furthermore, the QICs are internally coordinated by the state, in direct contrast with both Kentucky and Pennsylvania’s external coordinators. More importantly, the top regional-level administrators actively partici- pate in the monthly meetings of a number of the local committees. Th e administrators’ presence is welcomed by the committees and recognized as enhancing the groups’ success. Th e high degree of interconnectedness has enabled the QICs to have greater infl uence on agency decisions and to sense a substantial empowerment in their participation.
Th e further the distance between citizens and top administrators, the less likely these key decision makers are to consider the panels and to engage their recommendations seri- ously. Th e closer citizens and administrators start to come in interaction and purpose, the more likely citizen-participants are to be able to infl uence agency decisions. Th e reason that sustained and sincere interaction between the state and panels is important is so that the CRPs can avoid the lamentable position of being both out of sight and out of mind. Furthermore, having the administrators in the room adds a level of continuity to the proc- ess. More importantly, it becomes diffi cult to ignore and dismiss the panels’ eff orts, particularly because the administrator begins to take a vested interest in the panels’ success. Any successful changes brought by such a relationship come because the two parties move from coercion to cooperation on shared ends. In short, administrative absence from the process fosters apathy, contact breeds sympathy, and co-experience secures empathy. It is in the movement toward empathy that empowerment occurs. Th e more sustained the relationship between citizen-participants and the agency, and in particular the more direct and frequent the interactions with higher-level agency administrators, the more likely a sense of empower- ment will result from participation.
Being connected but not controlled. One crucial aspect of panel autonomy is to be found in its agenda-setting capacity, or, in other words, the panels’ ability to establish the course of priorities where attention and effort will be spent. Across each of the case states, interviewees emphasized the importance of the panels having a strong measure of self-guidance in choosing which aspects of the child protection system to review. This, of course, is consistent
Th e further the distance between citizens and top
administrators, the less likely these key decision makers are to consider the panels and to
engage their recommendations seriously.
The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-Organized Participation 581
and response decreases—citizens are more likely to feel that they have an eff ective voice through the participation process.
Table 2 distinguishes the case states on the characteristics described earlier, which emerged as important themes related to secur- ing administrative buy-in to the citizen review
process. Th e columns are aligned from left to right according to the citizen panels’ level of connection with agency administrators (refer to the fi rst row). Pennsylvania’s CRPs are indirectly connected to the agency through the external coordinator, Kentucky’s CRP–agency connections are mediated through the liaison, and Utah’s QICs are directly connected with administrators serving as active participants on the citizen groups. Th e implications of this type of connected- ness on perceptions of empowerment are discussed in the following section.
Relationship Building and the Path to Empowered Outcomes Interviewees were asked to assess whether they considered the panels to be valued by the state agency. Th e range of responses shown in fi gure 3 depict a continuum that runs from feeling irrelevant at the shallow end to feeling increasingly important at deeper levels. As the relationships strengthen, perceptions of being valued deepen as well.
Interviewees were also asked to defi ne success with regard to the work of the CRPs, as a way of gauging the eff ectiveness of citizen participation. Th ree distinct models emerged from their responses. In one model, panel success was contingent on outcomes, specifi - cally, changes in agency policy or practice that the CRP had clearly infl uenced. Another model defi ned success based on whether par- ticipants felt that the agency adequately supported the panels in the review process itself. A third model for perceived panel success also was revealed, somewhere between outcomes and processes. In this view, perceived success was based on the quality of the relationships that were developed with the agency representatives during engage- ment process. Interestingly, outcomes, processes, and relationships also emerged as dominant ways to gauge whether the work of the panels was valued by the agency. Figure 4 shows the three views of success with representative comments refl ecting each view. With legitimate processes in place, the path to empowered outcomes runs through strong citizen–administrator relationships. In the absence of identifi able outcomes, expectations tend to shift back to an emphasis on relationships or processes.
Some interesting patterns emerge when comparing the case states on these perceptions of success. In Utah, for example, members of the quality improvement committees were far more precise in identifying specifi c agency changes that had been directly infl u- enced by their recommendations. Importantly, this translated into a strong propensity to adopt an outcome-based defi nition of success. It became clear from the interviews that a sense of success raised expectations for future success as well. At the other end of the spectrum were respondents in Pennsylvania. At the time the interviews were conducted, the state still had not issued its fi rst response to the CRPs, a period of substantial delay lasting more than 15 months. Not surprisingly, the focus there emphasized proc- ess, with participants consistently reiterating that their chief desire was that the OCYF would simply provide a response to the panels’
desires. On the other hand, with too much panel autonomy, the citizen groups may fi nd themselves so detached from the state that they wander without direction or, worse, fi nd themselves starved of vital connections and support needed to perform their duties. Citizen frustration will increase if participants perceive the agency to be too controlling of the process. Similarly, frustration will increase if the participants are too disconnected from the agency. A balance must be struck between panel autonomy and agency control.
Shortening the feedback loop. There is a distinct disjointedness inherent in the recommendation and response exchange required in the CAPTA legislation. As detailed previously, at the end of each year’s efforts, the panels issue a report of recommendations to the state, which then has six months to provide a formal response to the panels. This lag in response segments the process somewhat artifi cially and renders real-time dialogue nearly impossible. The panels resume the next year’s activities while still awaiting response to the previous year’s recommendations, making it exceptionally diffi cult for the citizen groups to attain a sense of accomplishment and closure to their efforts.
Th ere is great value to shortening the communications feedback loop and bringing fl uidity to the citizen–agency interactions. In Pennsylvania, the experience of waiting for more than 15 months to receive the state’s fi rst response to the panel reports was under- standably exasperating for the panel participants. It fi nally required a face-to-face meeting with representatives from the OCYF to modify parameters for a more timely state response moving forward, the agreement ultimately being a fi xed six-month guideline. In Kentucky, the feedback loop was shortened through the creation of a memorandum of understanding, in which a three-month rec- ommendation and response timeline was initiated. Utah’s citizen committees do not issue just one recommendation report annually but rather submit formal recommendations on an ongoing basis. A formal protocol stipulates a one-month response time frame after the recommendation is received. However, with administra- tors at the table and participating on the citizen committees, the eff ective response to citizen recommendations is often immediate. By shortening the feedback mechanism and adding fl uidity to the process, the citizen–agency interaction moves closer to an engaged dialogue. As the communication between citizens and administrators becomes more continuous—that is, as the lag between recommendation
Table 2 Important Elements of Securing Administrative Buy-In to Participation
Pennsylvania Kentucky Utah
Connection with agency
Indirect through ex- ternal coordinator
Mediated through liaison
Direct with administrator
Jurisdictional alignment
Fragmented Clear alignment Clear alignment
Administrative audience
Multiple and diffuse Singular head Singular head
Panel autonomy in agenda setting
High panel autonomy; seek- ing more direction
High panel autonomy; seeking more direction
Balance autonomy with agency direction
Length of feedback loop
Long (six months) Medium (three month)
Near continuity
Th ere is a precarious balance to be sought between the level of
panel autonomy and the degree of agency control over panel
activities.
582 Public Administration Review • September | October 2014
excellent support and the state issued responses on time. However, panel members felt that their eff orts were not thought- fully considered, as if their recommendations were too quickly dismissed. Interestingly, with process expectations met but out- come expectations frustrated, many panel members I spoke with had turned their attention to the quality of the relationships between the citizen-participants and the agency administrators. Unable to clearly identify infl uenced outcomes, expectations for success and the basis for estimating the panels’ sense of being valued by the agency shift on the continua depicted in fi gures 3 and 4. Citizen-participants desire outcomes that are indicative of the effi cacy and value of their eff orts. However, process- and relationship-based expectations must be satisfi ed before a focus on outcomes is plausible.
Discussion: Rethinking the “Power” in Empowerment A comparison of the three cases in this study reveals that public empowerment in the context of government-organized citizen participation requires a reconceptualization of power itself, mov- ing from traditional control-based approaches toward those rooted
more in cooperation. In the traditional view, power is the ability of an individual or group to control the actions of other entities because of the unequal bases on which each stands in the relationship (see, e.g., Dahl 1957). However, there are other power confi gurations that are not control based but start instead from a premise of alignment (Follett 1940). Cooperative power does not necessarily
reports. Th e sentiments of one panel member capture the collective mood quite well: “Can’t they just answer us? Does it have to be this hard?”
In the middle was Kentucky, where there was evidence of both outcome- and process-based assessments of success and perceived value. When asked to identify an agency change infl uenced by the panels, few interviewees could do so specifi cally. Expectations about the process were largely being met; the panels were being provided
Whether we have done a
good job of
researching/presenting well-
thought recommendations
Being able to reach a
collaborative partnership
between CRPs and the
agency
To see that something
happens as a result of our
work
Seeing how things fit within
the bigger cross-systems
picture
Having a mutually respectful
relationship
A positive outcome for a
child or family
Bringing attention to
systematic factors that are
not working well
Our work becomes part of a
larger conversation in the
agency
When a change is
implemented, whether small
or sweeping, and as a result
kids and families are better
served
People who care, trying to
make a difference
Working together to come
up with solutions
Outcomes made possible
because of the work we have
done
Process Relationship Outcome
Figure 4 Three Views for Assessing Participation Success
Cooperative power does not necessarily consider the empow- erment of one party to come at the expense of another party; it can be mutually benefi cial and
synergistic.
Irrelevant
Tolerated
Valued
Taken
Seriously
Considered
I think [the panels] are seen as irrelevant.
The agency is not hostile, just indifferent.
If we [the CRPs] went away, I don’t think we’d be missed [by the state].
It is up to us to prove our worth and show why we exist, beyond just being mandated.
They [the state] have more important fish to fry.
It appears it is just a waste of [the agency’s] time to have to deal with us.
They view us as a bunch of busy-bodies.
The process is not embraced by the Cabinet in the way it should be.
The Cabinet often has to endure being criticized, sometimes unfairly or based on
sketchy work.
On the whole, we’re probably seen as a nuisance—one more thing on their plate.
The panels’ recommendations come up frequently in [the agency’s] meetings.
We [the agency] respect what [the panels] see [as concerns], even if we can’t get it
implemented.
They are respectful of us; but value us? I don’t know.
There is evidence that [the agency] takes it very seriously, politically speaking; they
don’t want us to lambast them.
We [the agency] do look at the recommendations seriously.
Yes, we value the panels, as evidenced by all of the support we provide them.
The fact that [the state] has put so much into the development of truly independent,
stand-alone panels indicates that they do value the panels.
People just want to know that they’ve been heard—in person, not at a distance.
Actually using our recommendations allows us to feel useful.
The administrator does a good job or recognizing and valuing the work we do. She
tells us and we feel it.
Figure 3 Levels of Perceived Value of Citizen-Participants
The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-Organized Participation 583
consider the empowerment of one party to come at the expense of another party; it can be mutually benefi cial and synergistic.
Th ere are two specifi c challenges in applying a control-based view of power to government-organized citizen participation in general and the citizen review process in particular. First, there exists a stark mismatch in power bases between the state agencies and the CRPs. Although established by federal mandate, the CRPs clearly are not endowed with power to match or supersede the legal-rational authority of the state agency. Second, there is a tendency for each party to view itself in the power position with respect to the other. Th e state perceives itself in the power position primarily because it is tasked with creating and supporting the citizen panels. Th e CRPs, alternatively, have some expectation of infl uence because they are federally mandated and because the state is required to respond to the panels’ recommendations. Th is divergence in role agreement can be a source of angst for both parties.
As described in the CAPTA legislation, states are required to respond in writing within six months to the recommendations given by the CRPs. Th e citizen panels cannot, however, dictate what that response will be; the mandate is to reply, not necessarily comply. If the CRPs enter the participation process assuming that they can force the state agency to adopt their specifi c recommendations, unmet expectations will almost certainly cause initial optimism to give way to frustration. Indeed, several outcomes are reasonable to imagine. For instance, if the panels present themselves in a combative or controlling way, the state may choose to minimize the support it provides for the review process. Th is would dramatically weaken the already-tentative power base of the CRPs. Alternatively, rather than subverting the process itself, the state agency may assert control over the outcomes by simply choosing to give superfi cial consideration to the panels’ recommendations—a sort of “thanks but no thanks” to the panel for its eff orts. Either way, the tone of interaction between the CRPs and agency will turn negative, and the participants will become frustrated or disillusioned in both the processes and outcomes of citizen review. Ultimately, for CRPs to be eff ective in infl uencing agency direction and decisions, they must concentrate on strengthening relationships and establishing shared foundations of cooperative engagement.
Conclusion Previous research has paid more particular attention to those factors that lead to formal empowerment processes, but with much less knowledge on how citizen–administrator engagement can lead to substantively empowered outcomes. Th is study begins to fi ll in our understanding of the linkages between participation mechanisms, participant capacity, and administrative responsiveness, highlight- ing the vital and dynamic citizen–administrator relationship that connects processes to outcomes within the black box (fi gure 1). Emergent themes from across the cases fostered a series of testable propositions regarding the potential for government-organized citi- zen participation to empower the public. Th ere is a need to recon- ceptualize empowerment in the context of government-organized citizen participation, moving away from a control-based norm to one of cooperation. Th e tone of relationship acts as a transition
mechanism toward cooperative engagement. Two critical factors shaping the tone of relationship emerged from the cases, including (1) the need for citizen-participants to maintain realistic expecta- tions for the participation process and outcomes in light of agency constraints and (2) the importance of administrators demonstrating a high level of buy-in and support of the participation process. Th e analysis also showed the connection between process-, relationship-, and outcome-based expectations for participation success.
Having a venue in which to participate does not guarantee that the participant will have a voice in shaping administrative deci- sions. Voice entails more than speaking; it is also being heard and understood. It is no coincidence then that the citizen-participants in Utah, who were most clear in their ability to gauge impact on administrative decisions, were similarly adamant that they had an eff ective voice through the review process. Kentucky’s participants expressed a nuanced and qualifi ed assessment of having a voice, and, in the absence of any state response up to that time, Pennsylvania’s participants were guardedly hopeful but uncertain. Although they were given a venue to speak, there was no way of knowing whether they were being heard.
Building relationships between citizens and administrators is vital to empowering citizens in the context of government-organized public participation. Th e development of relationships, however, does not
connote just one party moving over into the camp of the other. Rather, it was manifest most strongly as administrators and citizens met somewhere in the middle in terms of adapting to each other, with citizens coming to appreciate certain bureaucratic realities and administrators buying in to the citizen review process, balancing their expertise with a will- ingness to consider outside points of view. Th e
deeper those interactions go, both in terms of exposure and creating shared goals, the stronger will be the ensuing relationship. Th e result is a concomitant move toward an empowered citizenry.
Th e study also provided insight into citizen-government relation- ships within the rich context child protective services and opened a lens through which to understand the motives and methods of public empowerment through organized participation. Th rough these discussions, both citizens and administrators can better discern processes and structures that most eff ectively leverage the impact that public participation can have on shaping agency direction and decisions. Future research, both qualitative and quantitative, should expand the number and types of citizen participation contexts by designing studies to test the propositions emerging from this analysis.
References Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). 1979. Citizen
Participation in the American Federal System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4): 216–24.
Bryan, Valerie, Blake Jones, and Emily Lawson. 2010. Key Features of Eff ective Citizen–State Child Welfare Partnerships: Findings from a National Study of Citizen Review Panels. Children and Youth Services Review 32(4): 595–603.
Building relationships between citizens and administrators is vital to empowering citizens
in the context of government- organized public participation.
584 Public Administration Review • September | October 2014
Bryer, Th omas A. 2007. Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 17(3): 479–500.
———. 2009. Explaining Responsiveness in Collaboration: Administrator and Citizen Role Perceptions. Public Administration Review 69(2): 271–83.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2012. State vs. County Administration of Child Welfare Services. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/services.pdf [accessed June 3, 2014].
Collins-Camargo, Crystal, Blake L. Jones, and Seth Krusich. 2009. What Do We Know about Strategies for Involving Citizen in Public Child Welfare: A Review of Recent Literature and Implications for Policy, Practice, and Future Research. Journal of Public Child Welfare 3(3): 287–304.
Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crosby, Ned, Janet M. Kelly, and Paul Schaefer. 1986. Citizen Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation. Public Administration Review 46(2): 170–78.
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. Th e Concept of Power. Behavioral Science 2(3): 201–15. Foley, Dolores. 1998. We Want Your Input: Dilemmas of Citizen Participation. In
Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era, edited by Cheryl Simrell King and Camilla Stivers, 140–57. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Follett, Mary P. 1940. Power. In Dynamic Administration: Th e Collected Works of Mary Parker Follett, edited by Henry C. Metcalf and Lyndall Urwick, 95–116. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Gainsborough, Juliet F. 2010. Scandalous Politics: Child Welfare Policy in the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hadden, Susan G. 1981. Technical Information for Citizen Participation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 17(4): 537–49.
Hock, Scott, Sarah Anderson, and Matthew Potoski. 2013. Invitation Phone Calls Increase Attendance at Civic Meetings: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Public Administration Review 73(2): 221–28.
Houghton, David G. 1988. Citizen Advisory Boards: Autonomy and Eff ectiveness. American Review of Public Administration 18(3): 283–96.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2004. Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Th eory and Practice 5(4): 419–36.
Irvin, Reneé A., and John Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Eff ort? Public Administration Review 64(1): 55–65.
James, Oliver. 2011. Managing Citizens’ Expectations of Public Service Performance: Evidence from Observation and Experimentation in Local Government. Public Administration 89(4): 1419–35.
Jones, Blake L. 2004. Eff ectiveness of Citizen Review Panels. Children and Youth Services Review 26(12): 1117–27.
Jones, Blake L., Pat Litzelfelner, and Janet Ford. 2003. Th e Value and Role of Citizen Review Panels in Child Welfare: Perceptions of Citizens Review Panel Members and Child Protection Workers. Child Abuse and Neglect 27(6): 699–704.
Jones, Blake L., and David Royse. 2008a. Citizen Review Panels for Child Protective Services: A National Profi le. Child Welfare 87(3): 143–62.
———. 2008b. Citizen Review Panels: Th e Connection between Training and Perceived Eff ectiveness. Child Abuse and Neglect 32(10): 918–19.
Kathlene, Lyn, and John A. Martin. 1991. Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10(1): 46–63.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1956. Emerging Confl icts in the Doctrines of Public Administration. American Political Science Review 50(4): 1057–73.
King, Cheryl Simrell, Kathryn M. Feltey, and Bridget O’Neill Susel. 1998. Th e Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 58(4): 317–26.
Kweit, Mary Grisez, and Robert W. Kweit. 1981. Implementing Citizen Participation in a Bureaucratic Society: A Contingency Approach. New York: Praeger.
Kweit, Robert W., and Mary Grisez Kweit. 1980. Bureaucratic Decision-Making: Impediments to Citizen Participation. Polity 12(4): 647–66.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., and Steven Brigham. 2005. Taking Democracy to Scale: Large Scale Interventions—for Citizens. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41(1): 47–60.
Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moynihan, Donald P. 2003. Normative and Instrumental Perspectives on Public Participation: Citizen Summits in Washington, D.C. American Review of Public Administration 33(2): 164–88.
Patton, Michael Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rich, Richard C., Michael Edelstein, William K. Hallman, and Abraham H. Wandersman. 1995. Citizen Participation and Empowerment: Th e Case of Local Environmental Hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology 23(5): 657–76.
Roberts, Nancy. 2004. Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation. American Review of Public Administration 34(4): 315–53.
Rosener, Judy B. 1978. Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its Eff ectiveness? Public Administration Review 38(5): 457–63.
Simonsen, William, and Mark D. Robbins. 2000. Citizen Participation in Resource Allocation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stake, Robert E. 1995. Th e Art of Case Study Research. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stewart, Kennedy. 2007. Write the Rules and Win: Understanding Citizen Participation Game Dynamics. Public Administration Review 67(6): 1067–76.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Th eory. 2nd ed. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Th omas, John C. 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Timney, Mary M. 1998. Overcoming Administrative Barriers to Citizen Participation: Citizens as Partners, Not Adversaries. In Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era, edited by Cheryl Simrell King and Camilla Stivers, 88–101. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
———. 2011. Models of Citizen Participation: Measuring Engagement and Collaboration. In Government Is Us 2.0, edited by Cheryl Simrell King, 86–100. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wandersman, Abraham. 1984. Citizen Participation. In Psychology and Community Change: Challenges of the Future, 2nd ed., edited by Kenneth Heller, Richard H. Price, Shulamit Reinharz, Stephanie Riger, Abraham Wandersman, and Th omas A. D’Aunno, 337–79. Pacifi c Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Yang, Kaifeng, and Kathe Callahan. 2007. Citizen Involvement Eff orts and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Participatory Values, Stakeholder Pressures, and Administrative Practicality. Public Administration Review 67(2): 249–64.
Yang, Kaifeng, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. Public Responsiveness of Government Organizations: Testing a Preliminary Model. Public Performance and Management Review 31(2): 215–40.
Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.